psrock said: Kasz216 said: psrock said: Kasz216 said: psrock said: Kasz216 said: psrock said: Kasz216 said: psrock said: TheRealMafoo said: tombi123 said: Oh well, the rich and middle classes can afford it anyway :P   The rich don't pay as much taxes as you think, they have so much tax breaks, its crazy. I don't feel bad for them. You don't get it. Taxes on the rich hurt the poor more then it helps because of the nature of money and the rich.   Rich people don't throw their money in big vaults and swim around in it like scrooge McDuck.  They invest it.  Which results in GDP growth, which resutls in everyone in the country getting richer because everyones wages rise faster and more jobs are created. That must be why so many poor got wealthy during the Bush year, and none during the Clinton. Actually the Gini coefficent GREATLY rised during the Clinton years. and shrank during the Bush years. The rich got poorer then the poor did in the Bush years. The rich got richer then the poor in the Clinton years. Though trying to make that comparison when we were in a giant market recession that had it's makings well before bush came into market is realy disengenious.  Which to be fair, i've come to expect from you.   You tend to do nothing but troll these topics and make no effort to actually learn anything or make any well reasoned arguements. It's rather grating.   I'm not you. I am telling my experience, which I know better than you. Ask any poor people which time period the'd rather live in, the Clinton or the Bush, I don't care for Clinton, but it was better. I know it's just a small sample  of 300 million, but it's my sample. No research is needed. Funny thing, I predict 10 years from now, we will have a different thinking of this Health care bill based on how historians put it, i expect a much posive view on it. That's life. You act as if I dont't know poor people... ignoring you know... the fact where i mentioned I actually qualify for basicallly free haelthcare under this bill. Also your compairing Bush and Clinton as if Bush caused the GIANT RECESSION that happened. How did Clinton caused this Giant recession? the tax increase? the balance budget? the surplus? I have heard this idea a lot, but mostly from one side, but wasnt congress Republican controlled?

See... here is where you are offering two conflicting points.

You are saying both

A) The good economy was Clinton's job.

and

B) But if the Clinton era did cause it... it was the Republicans in congress fault.

So which is it?  Who was responsible for the good economy?  Clinton or the Republicans in congress.

If it was good it must be the democrats, though if i'm wrong it's the republicans fault?

 

The answer is NEITHER.  What made the economy so good under clinton was the internet mostly.  The internet created a LOT of new wealth which was then invested by the new rich milllionaires in all sorts of different things.

Nobody was responsible for Mark Cuban, outside of Mark Cuban and the internet creating the right market for people like Mark Cuban.

As for the recession... well that was a NUMBER of presidents fault.

You need to use statistical measures to take out confounding variables like that.  A large part of how well your economic policy looks to someone with an untrained eye is going to be based soley on dumb luck.

Kasz216 said: psrock said: Kasz216 said: You act as if I dont't know poor people... ignoring you know... the fact where i mentioned I actually qualify for basicallly free haelthcare under this bill. Also your compairing Bush and Clinton as if Bush caused the GIANT RECESSION that happened. How did Clinton caused this Giant recession? the tax increase? the balance budget? the surplus? I have heard this idea a lot, but mostly from one side, but wasnt congress Republican controlled? See... here is where you are offering two conflicting points. You are saying both A) The good economy was Clinton's job. and B) But if the Clinton era did cause it... it was the Republicans in congress fault. So which is it?  Who was responsible for the good economy?  Clinton or the Republicans in congress. If it was good it must be the democrats, though if i'm wrong it's the republicans fault?   The answer is NEITHER.  What made the economy so good under clinton was the internet mostly.  The internet created a LOT of new wealth which was then invested by the new rich milllionaires in all sorts of different things. Nobody was responsible for Mark Cuban, outside of Mark Cuban and the internet creating the right market for people like Mark Cuban. As for the recession... well that was a NUMBER of presidents fault. You need to use statistical measures to take out confounding variables like that.  A large part of how well your economic policy looks to someone with an untrained eye is going to be based soley on dumb luck.

You forgot Real estates. But I do agree that the internet played  a huge part, but it happened during the Clinton's years. And just like if things were bad he would have been blamed for it ( OBAMA), Clinton gets the credit when things were good. The people liked it and approved of his job even through some embarrassing period for a president.

psrock said: Kasz216 said: psrock said: Kasz216 said: You act as if I dont't know poor people... ignoring you know... the fact where i mentioned I actually qualify for basicallly free haelthcare under this bill. Also your compairing Bush and Clinton as if Bush caused the GIANT RECESSION that happened. How did Clinton caused this Giant recession? the tax increase? the balance budget? the surplus? I have heard this idea a lot, but mostly from one side, but wasnt congress Republican controlled? See... here is where you are offering two conflicting points. You are saying both A) The good economy was Clinton's job. and B) But if the Clinton era did cause it... it was the Republicans in congress fault. So which is it?  Who was responsible for the good economy?  Clinton or the Republicans in congress. If it was good it must be the democrats, though if i'm wrong it's the republicans fault?   The answer is NEITHER.  What made the economy so good under clinton was the internet mostly.  The internet created a LOT of new wealth which was then invested by the new rich milllionaires in all sorts of different things. Nobody was responsible for Mark Cuban, outside of Mark Cuban and the internet creating the right market for people like Mark Cuban. As for the recession... well that was a NUMBER of presidents fault. You need to use statistical measures to take out confounding variables like that.  A large part of how well your economic policy looks to someone with an untrained eye is going to be based soley on dumb luck. You forgot Real estates. But I do agree that the internet played  a huge part, but it happened during the Clinton's years. And just like if things were bad he would have been blamed for it ( OBAMA), Clinton gets the credit when things were good. The people liked it and approved of his job even through some embarrassing period for a president.

That's the point though.  You used Clinton and Bush as your example even though it was pretty much all a matter of coincidence.

It's even worse that you seem to know this yet tried to make this claim anwyay.

TheRealMafoo said: tombi123 said: TheRealMafoo said: @tombi123 No, it's great to be rich. Funny thing is, this helps the rich. Here is a fun exercise to think about. Let's say we had 10 people in a country, and 2 made 100,000 a year, and 8 made 10,000 a year. let's say that country then made a law that said "no one should make less then 15,000 a year!", and took 20k each from the rich, and gave 5K each to the poor". Now you have two people with 80K a year, and 8 people with 15K a year, with 1/3 of there income just given to them. Now, who do you think that hurts the most? Think about that for a bit. Who losses, and who wins? The poor guys did pretty well there and the two rich guys got pwned!  You're going to have to explain why the two rich guys won... Kasz has a point, but that's not where I was going. The "poor" mark was 10,000. Now the poor mark is 15,000. this means those 8 are just as poor as they were before, because the market will adjust. But the rich still have more then 4X the poor, but have less then they had before, so the cost of there lifestyle goes down. For example, if before you were going to charge them 300 a night for a hotel, you will have to charge them 250 a night for a hotel, because there is no one left who can pay 300. So the lifestyle of each didn't really change much. But, you have the guy making 10,000 a year, who realizes he would have to make 50% more then he makes now, just to start improving his situation. That's going to take years. Most people will not put forth the kind of effort needed to get ahead, if the soonest they will see a return on there investment is 10 or so years down the road. So, in 10 years, the guys taking home 80K will still be making 100K, and the ones taking home 15K will still be making 10K. The rich keep being rich, and the poor keep being poor. The only thing that would really hurt the rich's lifestyle, is if one of those poor became rich. Paying them to stay poor, keeps that from happening.

To add to this...

When "poor" was $10,000, it was posable to work a little harder, and make a little more. So if I worked hard enough to make 11,000, I had 1,000 to put towards not being poor. I could pay for education, or save invest it in something, or do whatever with it. But when poor was 15,000, If I worked harder and made 11,000, it just means I get 4,000 more to be poor.

It's MUCH harder to get out of poverty when you move the scale of how much I make vs what poverty is. Give all the poor 50% of there income has done that.

Kasz216 said: psrock said: Kasz216 said: psrock said: Kasz216 said: You act as if I dont't know poor people... ignoring you know... the fact where i mentioned I actually qualify for basicallly free haelthcare under this bill. Also your compairing Bush and Clinton as if Bush caused the GIANT RECESSION that happened. How did Clinton caused this Giant recession? the tax increase? the balance budget? the surplus? I have heard this idea a lot, but mostly from one side, but wasnt congress Republican controlled? See... here is where you are offering two conflicting points. You are saying both A) The good economy was Clinton's job. and B) But if the Clinton era did cause it... it was the Republicans in congress fault. So which is it?  Who was responsible for the good economy?  Clinton or the Republicans in congress. If it was good it must be the democrats, though if i'm wrong it's the republicans fault?   The answer is NEITHER.  What made the economy so good under clinton was the internet mostly.  The internet created a LOT of new wealth which was then invested by the new rich milllionaires in all sorts of different things. Nobody was responsible for Mark Cuban, outside of Mark Cuban and the internet creating the right market for people like Mark Cuban. As for the recession... well that was a NUMBER of presidents fault. You need to use statistical measures to take out confounding variables like that.  A large part of how well your economic policy looks to someone with an untrained eye is going to be based soley on dumb luck. You forgot Real estates. But I do agree that the internet played  a huge part, but it happened during the Clinton's years. And just like if things were bad he would have been blamed for it ( OBAMA), Clinton gets the credit when things were good. The people liked it and approved of his job even through some embarrassing period for a president. That's the point though.  You used Clinton and Bush as your example even though it was pretty much all a matter of coincidence. It's even worse that you seem to know this yet tried to make this claim anwyay.

Again, give credit when it's due. Clinton played a huge role also, yes the economy was helped by the internet burst, but it happened inhis watch. You would be blaming him right now if things went bad.

I still maintain that the Clinton years were better than the Bush, I am not talking about the person. Clinton did some pretty stupid stuff for a national leader, but I love the 90's better.

psrock said: Kasz216 said: psrock said: Kasz216 said: psrock said: Kasz216 said: You act as if I dont't know poor people... ignoring you know... the fact where i mentioned I actually qualify for basicallly free haelthcare under this bill. Also your compairing Bush and Clinton as if Bush caused the GIANT RECESSION that happened. How did Clinton caused this Giant recession? the tax increase? the balance budget? the surplus? I have heard this idea a lot, but mostly from one side, but wasnt congress Republican controlled? See... here is where you are offering two conflicting points. You are saying both A) The good economy was Clinton's job. and B) But if the Clinton era did cause it... it was the Republicans in congress fault. So which is it?  Who was responsible for the good economy?  Clinton or the Republicans in congress. If it was good it must be the democrats, though if i'm wrong it's the republicans fault?   The answer is NEITHER.  What made the economy so good under clinton was the internet mostly.  The internet created a LOT of new wealth which was then invested by the new rich milllionaires in all sorts of different things. Nobody was responsible for Mark Cuban, outside of Mark Cuban and the internet creating the right market for people like Mark Cuban. As for the recession... well that was a NUMBER of presidents fault. You need to use statistical measures to take out confounding variables like that.  A large part of how well your economic policy looks to someone with an untrained eye is going to be based soley on dumb luck. You forgot Real estates. But I do agree that the internet played  a huge part, but it happened during the Clinton's years. And just like if things were bad he would have been blamed for it ( OBAMA), Clinton gets the credit when things were good. The people liked it and approved of his job even through some embarrassing period for a president. That's the point though.  You used Clinton and Bush as your example even though it was pretty much all a matter of coincidence. It's even worse that you seem to know this yet tried to make this claim anwyay. Again, give credit when it's due. Clinton played a huge role also, yes the economy was helped by the internet burst, but it happened inhis watch. You would be blaming him right now if things went bad. I still maintain that the Clinton years were better than the Bush, I am not talking about the person. Clinton did some pretty stupid stuff for a national leader, but I love the 90's better.

How. Explain Clinton's huge role and what he did to advance these measures. If i find 100 dollars lying in the street tommorrow i'm not going to attrubute that to Obama just because it happened on his watch. Not to mention economic policy takes time to set in. Things were better in the 90's before the giant recession. Once again, that's largely irrelvent when you consider the LARGE RECESSION that was decades in the making. If Clinton and Bush changed presidencies... there would of been a huge boost under bush, and a huge recession under clinton. A "feel" test is irrelvent.

Also, all clinton did was cheat on his wife. A dick thing to do but i'd bet more presidents and world leaders have cheated on their spouses then haven't.

Kasz216 said: psrock said: Kasz216 said: psrock said: Kasz216 said: psrock said: Kasz216 said: You act as if I dont't know poor people... ignoring you know... the fact where i mentioned I actually qualify for basicallly free haelthcare under this bill. Also your compairing Bush and Clinton as if Bush caused the GIANT RECESSION that happened. How did Clinton caused this Giant recession? the tax increase? the balance budget? the surplus? I have heard this idea a lot, but mostly from one side, but wasnt congress Republican controlled? See... here is where you are offering two conflicting points. You are saying both A) The good economy was Clinton's job. and B) But if the Clinton era did cause it... it was the Republicans in congress fault. So which is it?  Who was responsible for the good economy?  Clinton or the Republicans in congress. If it was good it must be the democrats, though if i'm wrong it's the republicans fault?   The answer is NEITHER.  What made the economy so good under clinton was the internet mostly.  The internet created a LOT of new wealth which was then invested by the new rich milllionaires in all sorts of different things. Nobody was responsible for Mark Cuban, outside of Mark Cuban and the internet creating the right market for people like Mark Cuban. As for the recession... well that was a NUMBER of presidents fault. You need to use statistical measures to take out confounding variables like that.  A large part of how well your economic policy looks to someone with an untrained eye is going to be based soley on dumb luck. You forgot Real estates. But I do agree that the internet played  a huge part, but it happened during the Clinton's years. And just like if things were bad he would have been blamed for it ( OBAMA), Clinton gets the credit when things were good. The people liked it and approved of his job even through some embarrassing period for a president. That's the point though.  You used Clinton and Bush as your example even though it was pretty much all a matter of coincidence. It's even worse that you seem to know this yet tried to make this claim anwyay. Again, give credit when it's due. Clinton played a huge role also, yes the economy was helped by the internet burst, but it happened inhis watch. You would be blaming him right now if things went bad. I still maintain that the Clinton years were better than the Bush, I am not talking about the person. Clinton did some pretty stupid stuff for a national leader, but I love the 90's better. How. Explain Clinton's huge role and what he did to advance these measures. If i find 100 dollars lying in the street tommorrow i'm not going to attrubute that to Obama just because it happened on his watch. Not to mention economic policy takes time to set in. Things were better in the 90's before the giant recession. Once again, that's largely irrelvent when you consider the LARGE RECESSION that was decades in the making. If Clinton and Bush changed presidencies... there would of been a huge boost under bush, and a huge recession under clinton. A "feel" test is irrelvent.

http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-03.html

 

Welfare to work program alone was a huge deal.

Yeah, none of that actually accounts for all the booms unrelated to clinton. it also has a lot of nice quotes from the same people who caused the giant recession.

Kasz216 said: Yeah, none of that actually accounts for all the booms unrelated to clinton. it also has a lot of nice quotes from the same people who caused the giant recession.

I am tired, and you beat me at debating again , but at least give the man some credit. His goal were acheived and did many things few president will ever do again with the help of a republican congress.  His era was better, luck or not.